We publish here a letter from Pamela Fitzpatrick, a Labour councillor in Harrow who was recently suspended as part of the Labour purge, who highlights the hypocrisy and bureaucracy relating to the actions of the Labour hierarchy. “Those found guilty of an abuse of power should be dealt with”.
We publish here a letter from Pamela Fitzpatrick, a Labour councillor in Harrow who was recently suspended as part of the Labour purge, who highlights the hypocrisy and bureaucracy relating to the actions of the Labour hierarchy. “Those found guilty of an abuse of power should be dealt with”.
Over the August bank holiday weekend I joined the growing number of Labour Party members seemingly no longer welcome in the Labour Party. A rather innocuous email from the Labour Party had appeared in my inbox marked “supporter applications”. The email said I must read the attached letter which contained important information. The letter was from Iain McNicol, General Secretary of the Labour Party. I had been purged.
My suspension letter informed me that I was no longer entitled to attend CLP meetings and I was to be denied the right to vote in the leadership election. I am a Labour Councillor in the London Borough of Harrow and Vice Chair of the Harrow Labour Group on the council. Consequently, Mr McNicol informed me, I was also suspended from the Harrow Labour Group. I was no longer allowed to hold office as Vice Chair of the Group nor sit on the Group executive. The suspension was with immediate effect.
No dates or details were given of the allegation against me, nor was I notified of who had made the complaint. No information was provided as to who to contact or of whether I had a right of appeal, and if so what the process involved. As I was notified over a bank holiday weekend I had to wait two days before I could telephone the Labour Party to get further information. When I did telephone the Party all it would tell me is that I was suspended.
I am a socialist and I have spoken alongside Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell at rallies. I also signed the councillors’ letter expressing support for Corbyn. It came as no surprise, therefore, that when I received details of the allegation against me it was from someone on the right of the party.
The allegation was entirely false and luckily related to a meeting attended by approximately 30 members including a past leader of the council. I had proof the allegation was fabricated, but also was alerted that the person who had made the allegation against me had a track record of exaggerated and false complaints. My suspension was therefore subsequently lifted, although no apology was offered and I still have not received my ballot to allow me to vote in the leadership election.
That the NEC can suspend a member on the word of another person is concerning. To fail to provide any details of the allegation or of any appeal rights, and in some cases to deny any appeal, is an astounding breach of natural justice. Coming from the Party that introduced the Human Rights Act, it is a disgrace.
I am fortunate that my suspension was short lived. Thousands of members wrongly suspended or expelled will have to wait months before their appeal is heard. Some, however, are told they do not even have a right of appeal; instead they are ‘auto-excluded’.
I am aware of only two Smith supporters who have been suspended, compared to several thousand Corbyn supporters. Such an imbalance would surely cause any fair minded person to question why this was the case. The bias in the suspensions and expulsions is blatant, and it is difficult to view it as anything other than an orchestrated campaign. The question is: by whom?
There also appears to be something of a two-tier system of justice operating at the Labour Party. Ordinary members are suspended or even expelled, often for very minor misdemeanours. This has led to widespread fear amongst members that a tweet from years ago may lead to an immediate expulsion from the party.
By contrast, for Smith-supporting MPs it appears that nothing they say or write will be deemed too offensive or in breach of Party rules. Alan Johnson, for example, “demands relentless rebellion against Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership”. The members voted overwhelmingly last year for Corbyn to be leader, and despite the gerrymandering of the vote Corbyn looks set to win again. Labour Party rules stress that the party is a democratic one, yet Johnson seems unable to accept this. This is not a politician disagreeing with a policy and speaking out about it, but rather a senior politician within the Labour Party calling for MPs to disregard the choice of members as to who will lead the party. Why has Johnson not been subjected to a suspension in the same way as ordinary Labour party members?
There are a number of lawyers in the PLP, and many boast of their work in the field of human rights. Yet, curiously, all seem to have abandoned any concerns about the rule of law, procedural fairness and the right to a fair hearing.
The Party must now hold an inquiry into the suspension scandal, and those found guilty of an abuse of power should be dealt with appropriately. However, members must ensure that we never allow a tiny elite to highjack our party again. Members need to become more active at all levels of the party, and at the very least should attend branch and CLP meetings. In addition, members should demand accountability from the hierarchy in the branches and CLPS, as well as from councillors and MPs. If you are not happy with the answers, you should stand for positions yourself.
